How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[SSDD]

The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum.

Incorrect;

The SB equation demands a vacuum as the atmosphere has a totally different emissitivity. This can change the radiative properties of the BB. Its this unknown that an a atmosphere brings, which they have yet to deal with.

IE; If I run water on a BB it cools rapidly or if it is cold warms rapidly. The issue is how those items in contact affect the BB's radiative properties.

Again, LWIR radiation is a bit play in the troposphere due to our atmospheres water content.

If wuwei understood just a little bit more about the S-B law, he would understand exactly Jack.

 

[SSDD]

The SB equation and the black body equations with emissivity are both valid in any environment; not just a vacuum. No scientific site limits them to a vacuum.

Incorrect;

The SB equation demands a vacuum as the atmosphere has a totally different emissitivity. This can change the radiative properties of the BB. Its this unknown that an a atmosphere brings, which they have yet to deal with.

IE; If I run water on a BB it cools rapidly or if it is cold warms rapidly. The issue is how those items in contact affect the BB's radiative properties.

The SB law does not require radiation to a vacuum in order for it to be valid. Where do you and SSDD get this?

You have to define more explicitly what configuration you are referring to. Radiation from exactly what to what. Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

.

What a moron....If you are going to theorize a perfect black body why would you put it in an environment where its radiation could change?

The fact is that

describes a perfect black body radiating into a perfect vacuum...If you put it in a place where there is other matter, then the equation changes to reflect the new environment.... How can you possibly not know this...it is basic....

 

[SSDD]

Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

What do you think is happening to the earths surface? You really dont get it...

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in this pointless exercise until now. You all have demonstrated you do not understand even the basics of the science.

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum.

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

I agree with Todd. Find a reference that explains what you are thinking. SSDD says the same thing but won't cite a source.

.

The writing of the equation is all the evidence I need. It does not make reference to anything other than the black body. IF it were to inclued the atmosphere it would have included it in the equation, which it does not.

Here is how Britanic Explaines the Law.

"Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

SOURCE

The equations creation does not include the atmosphere, only the black body. Thus it, by itself, must be in a vacuum. The "black-body" calcuation is done in a vacuum.

Exactly...there are a whole set of equations that are applied when the black body is, for example, not perfect in which case an expression for emissivity is included, and when the BB is in the presence of other matter...where the difference between the BB and its cooler surroundings are calculated...

They expect that such details be spelled out for them in crayon...

since it is far beyond the crayon level, the chances of finding someone writing serious science, at the grade school level to explain what anyone looking at material at this level should already know is about zero...and since no one is going to write at kindergarten level for these bozos, they just go on believing that they know it all...

 

[Wuwei]

Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

What do you think is happening to the earths surface? You really dont get it...

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in this pointless exercise until now. You all have demonstrated you do not understand even the basics of the science.

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum.

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

I agree with Todd. Find a reference that explains what you are thinking. SSDD says the same thing but won't cite a source.

.

The writing of the equation is all the evidence I need. It does not make reference to anything other than the black body. IF it were to inclued the atmosphere it would have included it in the equation, which it does not.

Here is how Britanic Explaines the Law.

"Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

SOURCE

The equations creation does not include the atmosphere, only the black body. Thus it, by itself, must be in a vacuum. The "black-body" calcuation is done in a vacuum.

I agree with the Britannica definition in the sense that it is the original form that Boltzmann wrote for black body radiation. What Boltzmann did was integrate the black body radiation formula over all wavelengths to get the sigma.

I'm sure you are aware that later the law was generalized to "grey bodies" where the emissivity factor was introduced to the original form. This is still called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. If you insist on calling it a black body formula with no emissivity, then the SB equation is useless because true black bodies do not exist in nature. Also you disagree with all science when you say it is only valid in a vacuum.

Do you think the SB equation means there is only one-way radiation and zero radiation between objects at the same temperature?

.

 

[Wuwei]

What a moron....If you are going to theorize a perfect black body why would you put it in an environment where its radiation could change?

The fact is that

describes a perfect black body radiating into a perfect vacuum...If you put it in a place where there is other matter, then the equation changes to reflect the new environment.... How can you possibly not know this...it is basic....

See post 724 above.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Exactly...there are a whole set of equations that are applied when the black body is, for example, not perfect in which case an expression for emissivity is included, and when the BB is in the presence of other matter...where the difference between the BB and its cooler surroundings are calculated...

They expect that such details be spelled out for them in crayon...

since it is far beyond the crayon level, the chances of finding someone writing serious science, at the grade school level to explain what anyone looking at material at this level should already know is about zero...and since no one is going to write at kindergarten level for these bozos, they just go on believing that they know it all...

See post 724.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

What do you think is happening to the earths surface? You really dont get it...

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in this pointless exercise until now. You all have demonstrated you do not understand even the basics of the science.

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum.

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

I agree with Todd. Find a reference that explains what you are thinking. SSDD says the same thing but won't cite a source.

.

The writing of the equation is all the evidence I need. It does not make reference to anything other than the black body. IF it were to inclued the atmosphere it would have included it in the equation, which it does not.

Here is how Britanic Explaines the Law.

"Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

SOURCE

The equations creation does not include the atmosphere, only the black body. Thus it, by itself, must be in a vacuum. The "black-body" calcuation is done in a vacuum.

I agree with the Britannica definition in the sense that it is the original form that Boltzmann wrote for black body radiation. What Boltzmann did was integrate the black body radiation formula over all wavelengths to get the sigma.

I'm sure you are aware that later the law was generalized to "grey bodies" where the emissivity factor was introduced to the original form. This is still called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. If you insist on calling it a black body formula with no emissivity, then the SB equation is useless because true black bodies do not exist in nature. Also you disagree with all science when you say it is only valid in a vacuum.

Do you think the SB equation means there is only one-way radiation and zero radiation between objects at the same temperature?

.

The equation does not make any calculations for a grey body nor does it make any calculations for our atmosphere.

You simply add what you want to make it do as you want. That is not how science works.

Simply amazing what passes for science in your world today.

Tell me, What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic? They do nothing. They do not warm anything and the two bodies emit at the same rate relative to their surroundings. Have you observed anything different?

 

[SSDD]

Of course running water on a body alters the temperature but totally alters the configuration.

What do you think is happening to the earths surface? You really dont get it...

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

This is precisely why I choose not to engage in this pointless exercise until now. You all have demonstrated you do not understand even the basics of the science.

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum.

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?

SB is defined as a Black Body radiating in a vacuum. ANY ITEM NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CHANGES THE EQUATION.

I agree with Todd. Find a reference that explains what you are thinking. SSDD says the same thing but won't cite a source.

.

The writing of the equation is all the evidence I need. It does not make reference to anything other than the black body. IF it were to inclued the atmosphere it would have included it in the equation, which it does not.

Here is how Britanic Explaines the Law.

"Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

SOURCE

The equations creation does not include the atmosphere, only the black body. Thus it, by itself, must be in a vacuum. The "black-body" calcuation is done in a vacuum.

I agree with the Britannica definition in the sense that it is the original form that Boltzmann wrote for black body radiation. What Boltzmann did was integrate the black body radiation formula over all wavelengths to get the sigma.

I'm sure you are aware that later the law was generalized to "grey bodies" where the emissivity factor was introduced to the original form. This is still called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. If you insist on calling it a black body formula with no emissivity, then the SB equation is useless because true black bodies do not exist in nature. Also you disagree with all science when you say it is only valid in a vacuum.

Do you think the SB equation means there is only one-way radiation and zero radiation between objects at the same temperature?

.

Do you see a factor for emissivity in

which is the basis for the whole dog and pony show? How about a factor for area? How about a factor for the temperature of the environment for which the emitter is radiating? How about anything at all that would at least give the appearance of some actual thought going into the hypothesis?

 

[Wuwei]

The equation does not make any calculations for a grey body nor does it make any calculations for our atmosphere.

You simply add what you want to make it do as you want. That is not how science works.

Simply amazing what passes for science in your world today.

So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics.
So I want to add what I want??? No it's science adding what agrees with experiment.
Just as SSDD does, you want to personalize me as the culprit who invented thermodynamics.

Tell me, What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic? They do nothing. They do not warm anything and the two bodies emit at the same rate relative to their surroundings. Have you observed anything different?

That is an ill-formed generalization. You need to be specific.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Do you see a factor for emissivity in

which is the basis for the whole dog and pony show? How about a factor for area? How about a factor for the temperature of the environment for which the emitter is radiating? How about anything at all that would at least give the appearance of some actual thought going into the hypothesis?

Are you still complaining about the toy slab atmosphere example? We already covered that more than once.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The equation does not make any calculations for a grey body nor does it make any calculations for our atmosphere.

You simply add what you want to make it do as you want. That is not how science works.

Simply amazing what passes for science in your world today.

So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics.
So I want to add what I want??? No it's science adding what agrees with experiment.
Just as SSDD does, you want to personalize me as the culprit who invented thermodynamics.

LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!

Point me to just ONE model that has passed the predictive phase and concurred with empirically observed data.

Tell me, What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic? They do nothing. They do not warm anything and the two bodies emit at the same rate relative to their surroundings. Have you observed anything different?

That is an ill-formed generalization. You need to be specific.

.

What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic?

Show your work!

 

[SSDD]

What do photons of the same energetic value do when absorbed by a body equally energetic?

Show your work!

According to the physics in his fantasy world, the energy will be doubled...

 

[SSDD]

Do you see a factor for emissivity in

which is the basis for the whole dog and pony show? How about a factor for area? How about a factor for the temperature of the environment for which the emitter is radiating? How about anything at all that would at least give the appearance of some actual thought going into the hypothesis?

Are you still complaining about the toy slab atmosphere example? We already covered that more than once.

.

Actually you only attempted to gloss over the obvious, and catastrophic flaws...that "toy" is the basis for the entire dog and pony show...and I suppose that you believe by calling it a "toy" you can somehow distance yourself from the absolute absurdity of what you believe...Go to any explanation of the greenhouse effect from any source you care to visit, and they all begin with that and build upon it from there...they don't build the "toy" as an explanation and then do something entirely different when it is "real" science...they build upon the very equation you see there and anything built upon that joke is going to be nothing more than a bigger joke...as evidnenced by the fact that it can't produce an estimate of the temperature here without a fudge factor..and can't even get close to predicting the temperature of other planets...

 

[SSDD]

So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics..

Well known? What a laugh...In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you see a factor for emissivity in

which is the basis for the whole dog and pony show? How about a factor for area? How about a factor for the temperature of the environment for which the emitter is radiating? How about anything at all that would at least give the appearance of some actual thought going into the hypothesis?

Are you still complaining about the toy slab atmosphere example? We already covered that more than once.

.

Actually you only attempted to gloss over the obvious, and catastrophic flaws...that "toy" is the basis for the entire dog and pony show...and I suppose that you believe by calling it a "toy" you can somehow distance yourself from the absolute absurdity of what you believe...Go to any explanation of the greenhouse effect from any source you care to visit, and they all begin with that and build upon it from there...they don't build the "toy" as an explanation and then do something entirely different when it is "real" science...they build upon the very equation you see there and anything built upon that joke is going to be nothing more than a bigger joke...as evidnenced by the fact that it can't produce an estimate of the temperature here without a fudge factor..and can't even get close to predicting the temperature of other planets...

The SB constant is valid for a black body in a vacuum. The "fudge factor" is the attempt to account for the atmosphere, which they still are unable to model in any valid form. It's not so much the SB constant as it is the crap they try to pass off as science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics..

Well known? What a laugh...In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

And some idiocy is limited to you.

Still no back up for your all-knowing, all-seeing photons? Weird.

 

[SSDD]

So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics..

Well known? What a laugh...In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

And some idiocy is limited to you.

Still no back up for your all-knowing, all-seeing photons? Weird.

And the wait continues for a measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a lower frequency to a higher frequency...Do be sure to send me an IM when you find one...the Nobel committee will be interested.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you want to disagree with well know thermodynamics..

Well known? What a laugh...In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

And some idiocy is limited to you.

Still no back up for your all-knowing, all-seeing photons? Weird.

And the wait continues for a measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a lower frequency to a higher frequency...Do be sure to send me an IM when you find one...the Nobel committee will be interested.

You'll have to give your definition of spontaneous.
And what do you mean by "lower frequency to higher frequency"?
I thought your claim involved temperatures?

 

[Wuwei]

LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!

According to the physics in his fantasy world, the energy will be doubled..

That is a bald faced lie.

.

 

[Wuwei]

LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!

Well known? What a laugh...In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

The SB constant is valid for a black body in a vacuum. The "fudge factor"....

If you guys want to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that includes the emissivity, and if you want to deny radiation is exchanged between objects, and insist on one way radiation, and if you insist the SB equation only works in a vacuum, you disagree with thermodynamics. It is simple as that. So be it.

Neither of you can explain why the earth absorbs 160 W/m² from the sun and radiates around 400 W/m² of LWIR.

So be it.

.